"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." ~ C. S. Lewis (Yes, even politics)

In loving memory of Mr. Z

Saturday, December 4, 2010

BUSINESS in America...does it have a future?

PLEASE listen to this because I shamelessly 'stole' it from my buddy Joe-Jo Politico and it'll help me feel less guilty since I know he knows this MUST BE SEEN by more and more Americans. Come to think of it, this could have been a very interesting SIXTY MINUTES or an interview with Matt Lauer on TODAY, huh? (as if the leftwing media would EVER do a piece about struggling American businessmen against raising taxes with proof of why that helps America succeed!)

Another thing not completely unrelated to the video was something Professor Heldman (the resident liberal prof from Occidental College on Hannity's show) said last night...she lamented that Americans are 'cleaning toilets and working up to 3 jobs and the lower classes like them, working THAT hard, show that our system is NOT MERITORIOUS!' I sat there numb, thinking "Wow, doesn't going to school, following the rules, working hard to succeed and running a dental office or law firm that employees 300 people count as MERITORIOUS?"
Then, in this excellent video, we see the perfect example of a guy whose merits and hard work should be paying off for him and our country but our government won't let him? Maybe they think his work isn't meritorious, either. Or they just plain don't want him to do well. It's hard to tell lately.
geeeeez

80 comments:

The odd thing is that Leftists insist on businesses not only staying in America under penalty of law, but that they pay more taxes, that business owners only make a certain amount of profit, but that profits from larger businesses essentially be confiscated.

Boy, BZ, you say so much in so few words and yes, you're so right.Imagine a 'certain amount of profit' and our government's going to TELL what doctors and lawyers and manufacturers CAN make and CAN keep? It's not America anymore, that's for sure.

Left-wingers need to realize that taxing a business more merely increases the prices consumers will pay for their products. Taxation is a business expense, and businesses will seek ways to profit above expenses.

They'll jack up the price of their product or service to cover new expenses.

They'll lay off employees to cut expenses.

They'll relocate overseas for cheaper employees and lower taxation.

It's been said that the government could charge any tax rate on businesses it wanted, on up to 100%, and because of market forces they still will not garner more than 20% of the economy through taxation because the expenses create a point of diminishing returns.

I assume you listened to the portion where he stated that the company is not profitable. Therefore his taxes are zero.

He does take out a lot of revenue as personal income which is absolutely insane. But that's a little complex for you and Joe.

@Beamish -- They'll jack up the price of their product or service to cover new expenses.-----------------------

I love this bit of silliness. If they can raise the price without losing share then why don't they jut raise it. What do the taxes have to do with pricing in a competitive market? Not a simple topic but you don't make allowance for competitive pricing.

They'll jack up the price of their product or service to cover new expenses.

I love this bit of silliness. If they can raise the price without losing share then why don't they jut raise it.

Because it's unprofitable to have a shelf full of over-priced products while competitors are offering a lower price and attracting away the customer and client base?

What do the taxes have to do with pricing in a competitive market? Not a simple topic but you don't make allowance for competitive pricing.

Sure I do. Taxation as a business expense imposes a cost atop labor, production and marketing costs. The new expense hits the business' bottom line and those of its competitors, quite irregardless of size. It doesn't leave much wiggle room in pricing if everyone's costs go up. The net result is the smaller businesses can't compete with the larger businesses that can absorb greater costs and disappear from the field.

Duck, in a small business the "revenue" from the business is Personal income. Ask an accountant. My wife runs her own business as a corporation and makes less than $250K a year, but it is counted as personal income or she pays double taxes. Corporate tax and personal tax. It ain't rocket science Duck just the facts of business. With the "idiot in chief" so called Obamanocare plan she can't hire any more people to help her grow or she will be further taxed thru his stupid plan plus have to provide insurance which the company can not afford or be fined.

Duck, I suggest you try to run a small business. I did it as a psychologist in private practice for one year and said to heck with it and retired once again. It was not worth the hassle and dang sure would not be a worthwhile endeavor with the fool in the WH wanting to TAX TAX TAX

Duck, I suggest you try to run a small business. I did it as a psychologist in private practice for one year and said to heck with it and retired once again. It was not worth the hassle and dang sure would not be a worthwhile endeavor with the fool in the WH wanting to TAX TAX TAX

Even as a freelancer, the cost of social security is a huge load. With the taxes in CA I'm considering stopping as well.

Those despicable leftists and statists rather have us all enslaved to big corporations or big government so they can keep exercising their crony capitalism.

"idiot in chief" so called Obamanocare plan she can't hire any more people to help her grow or she will be further taxed thru his stupid plan plus have to provide insurance which the company can not afford or be fined.

Only if she has more than 50 full time employees. Under 50, you are not penalized. If she does decide to offer ins., she can get a tax credit (under 24 FT employees) and offer her employees a choice of coverage from the exchange. It would also put her employees in a larger pool. It would be cheaper.

The guy in the video said if he takes $300K in personal income he can't hire someone new. If the tax cut expires, as it was meant to do after 10 years, on incomes over 250K, ONLY the portion of his income over 250k would be taxed at the new rate. The new rate is 39%, 3% more than the current rate. 3% of 50k is $1,500. Now, how many people can he hire for $1,500 a year?

wrong, DUcky.I have had my own business for years and yes, income comes IN, it gets taxed, I GET WHAT I WANT TO TAKE, I get taxed.His revenue is his income......Nobody said every cent was...Gad..read ticker.

BB...you think your guy's making it easier for business in this country? I'll open your link later..no time now.

BB..your link needs a LOG IN and I won't give the NY Times the pleasure.I'm sure it's as gloom and doom as they can be..........as if they hadn't backed the guy or the congress (the last six years) who put us in this nightmare situation.

my wife and daughter have a small business and my wife until Saturday also worked for a company. Initially they were paying her SS, unemployement insurance and withdrawing her taxes. Eventually they decided to pay all the employees as independent contractors. This doubled my wife's share of SS and medicare taxes because she has to pay as both the employer and the employee now. Nearly half of what she makes goes toward taxes. This doesn't include her expenses. Last week her employer couldn't make it anymore and in less than a week folded up shop.

While my wife builds clientele (she makes over 3X as much with her own clients) she's still stuck with the extra burden as an independent contractor and though she's worked for this employer for over two will not qualify for unemployment because she is technically a small business owner.

Here's a blast from the past. Alan Greenspan's Senate testimony in 2001. While not explicitly calling for the Bush tax cuts, he supports cutting taxes. His big fear is that the federal debt will be paid off too quickly.

The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade.

But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

I immigrated to this country b/c of the pioneer and entrepreneurship spirit. and it's being destroyed.

People especially politicians have confused the American dream with money, when it's not the main aspect of it. Because they thought it was money they think fair housing, welfare is part of the American Dream.

They have forgotten the biggest components of the American dream: Freedom, with or without material wealth. The ability to make a life for oneself the way you want it.

I could apply the same logic to your goons. More unemployment, we have to create more welfare and send more checks, or extend unemployment insurance because it creates jobs. That's what Pelosi and the likes say. Big time idiots.

You sound like a smart guy to me but I think you're not making the effort to think more deeply and have a more critical mind. Sorry.

"Mostly, to finance the "privileged" lifestyles of those in the Beltway.

That's exactly right."

I disagree. You guys REALLY think this nutty TAX 'EM TILL THEY'RE WEARING MAO JACKETS stuff is so the people on The Hill get rich? HOW'S THAT??

Okay..if you consider that they know they'll keep their jobs if they keep giving entitlements, that might be true.......and, of course, they've actually convinced some idiotic really rich people that they need to PAY MORE (not even remembering these "I'm so rich I'LL PAY MORE TAXES types" COULD pay more, nobody's stopping them from giving Uncle Sam ALL their money not just on April 15 but any time of the year!).....but, mostly, I don't think they're taxing us to finance the lifestyles of approx 600 politicians!

No Z. But their maintaing their power by dividing us, feeding us a bunch of misleading information, treating us like idiots. It's not necessarily the politicians but also their parties working with interests, unions, corporations, etc...

Don't get me wrong. Some politicians are well intended but most are sleaze bags.

I do not trust them at all. Even the good ones, I must keep some mistrust not to be disappointed.

No. Taxes are placed on profit and come after product costs. Pitch till you win.

Product costs go up because a supplier was taxed more. The supplier wants to keep a greater share of his profits, so he must somehow increase his profits to stay at the SAME level of he had before he was taxed higher.

Are you forgetting that that profit could be invested back into the business - expansion, employee raises and equipment, etc. rather than stagnated by increased taxation?

How about paying off loans that made starting the profitable business possible?

The guy in the video said if he takes $300K in personal income he can't hire someone new. If the tax cut expires, as it was meant to do after 10 years, on incomes over 250K, ONLY the portion of his income over 250k would be taxed at the new rate. The new rate is 39%, 3% more than the current rate. 3% of 50k is $1,500. Now, how many people can he hire for $1,500 a year?

According to this clip the guys business is not profitable and he is taking all his revenue as personal income.

Since he's not profitable business tax has nothing to do with this.

However, if his personal income tax is too low then he's going to be very human and take the revenue as personal income and invest nothing in growing the business. So if the personal tax rate is too low it can lead to stagnation and low hiring. Sound familiar. And I bet this guy is also complaining that he can't get financing.

Here's the kicker. My mother does the accounting for her but takes no compensation because if she did my wife would have to pay workmens comp and UI on top of it. If her taxes were half of what it is she'd be able to pay my mother to do her books.

Many small businesses estimate their taxes on a quarterly basis. Until they file a tax return they may not know whether they made a profit and if so many operate on the margins. It's not just fed taxes that are a burden; SS, unemployment insurance, workmens comp and now mandated health benefits can make having a small business hardly worthwhile.

However, if his personal income tax is too low then he's going to be very human and take the revenue as personal income and invest nothing in growing the business.

Maybe he's still paying on loans that helped to start his business. It is, after all, his signature on the loan papers. Maybe he needs his level of income / return on his investment for starting a business to put equity into that dream house that starting a sucessful business allowed him to afford.

Ask yourself this. Does the guy deserve a $300,000 income for employing people and paying them?

Take it on down to the 10% bracket.

Does the guy scrimping by on $8,350 a year ($7,515 after federal taxes, not including varying state and local taxes) have to have an additional $417.50 taken out of his annual income by the federal taxes when he's shunted into the 15% bracket if Bush's tax cuts are not extended?

And so you shunt the guy that now clears around $600 a month into a market economy where prices are rising. After cumulatively taking an extra 3 weeks of pay away from him.

However, if his personal income tax is too low then he's going to be very human and take the revenue as personal income and invest nothing in growing the business. So if the personal tax rate is too low it can lead to stagnation and low hiring. Sound familiar. And I bet this guy is also complaining that he can't get financing.

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance." JFK ( The last intelligent , thinking, Democrat President this country ever had or will have)

Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers. Prove me wrong!

Black market is so big in France. Working under the table, renting places with official paperwork, etc...

The gov tried to fix that by creating tax deductions if you hired people for work like nannies, gardeners, etc... but what it did is increase prices of those services b/c the providers knew people were getting the tax break. Fairly rational, uh?

So it's back to square one.

Very frustrating people like Ducky don't get it.

What statism and socialism do is destroy ethics. Because being ethical becomes too costly.

And what I love the most in the US is the ethics of its people. I don't want to have the French way of doing business in this country. No thanks!

We'll see. There may be that one guy that made $8,350 a year that sits down to do his taxes in April 2011 only to find out he owes the IRS an additional $417.50 because he only paid in at the 10% rate rather than the 15% rate. Yeah, he'll get something of a refund off the taxes paid on the first $6,000 he made, but that's the point, isn't it? The taxes were taken out, he's petitioning and filing to get some of it back. Why did it have to be taken out in the first place?

I know what it is. I just like to see righties explain it. They always think we're on the right side of the parabolic curve. There probably is a tax rate of diminishing returns, but no one, not even Arthur Laffer, knows what it is.

Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers. Prove me wrong!

Revenue always increases due to inflation, raises and growing population. So revenue did rise but it rose less than if nothing had been done with taxes.

The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695

Here's a handy chart comparing revenue from Clinton years to Bush years.

So far Craig you haven't proved crap much less proved what I said to be wrong. No inflation does not play the effect that you idiots on the left would like to pretend it does. The fact is when people KEEP more of their money, they have a tendency to spend and invest more. When they are taxed, they find shelters and don't spend thus lowing the amount of revenue the government takes in. But of course you lefties always are in denial about such because the only way you see to fund your socialist "entitlement" welfare programs is through taxation of the wealth who in turn will find shelters and then guess who gets to pay? The very one that the so called "friends of the little man" claim to protect. That's BS and everyone knows it.

Why do you think the economy is in a hole now? Hell no it ain't Bush's fault. The Dems didn't inherit anyhing but their own mess which they made from 2007 on.

The last budget deficit that Demonkkkrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated. Hey and guess who voted for all those budgets ? Why Mr. "I inherited it from Bush", the "idiot in chief" currently occupying the WH of course but then it's always easier to blame someone else . That is so typical of a narcissist which of course Obama is. Then the leftist chime in because they don't have a clue but only follow the voice of "dear leader".

The reason the economy is where it is is because "investors", the small business owner and even big business does not trust the fool dictating policy from the WH , when he's there, nor do they trust his socialist agenda in ObamaNOCARE, his "crap and tax" plan or anything else coming out of his administration.

Once again Craig you're trying to piss on my leg and trying to convince me it's raining. Won't work, been around too long and understand how the leftist mind muddles along. Again, prove me wrong instead of trying to peeg on my leg.

And by the way Montesquieu before Laffer talked about the diminishing return of taxation. The guy was brilliant because he had a keen sense for observing humanity, religion and economics. I'll always remember his take on political system and religions. Looking at what's going on now, the guy was right on target.

Now for my two cents worth and I'm leaving the tax thing to the rest of you to argue until the cows come home.

It ain't about TAXES! It's about SPENDING!

They can cut taxes, raise taxes what ever but until the SPENDING CEASES all the taxes, cuts or raises won't be worth a tinkers dam. That my friends is the only way we will ever see daylight in this country again. As long as spending buys votes it ain't gonna end. Keep em stupid and keep em on the plantation. That's the fools in DC plan.

The fools on the Deficit Commission are saying cuts are necessary While within the report it makes many necessary cuts, it doesn't go nearly far enough (and Congress is likely to avoid going even as far as the report does), and it calls for massive tax increases totaling $1.13 trillion. For every $1 in cuts there are $2 in tax increases.

"Sorry we spent too much, but now we're going to need you to pay up" probably won't be a winning message with voters.

Again STOP SPENDING, it really is that simple. If it won't pass constitutional muster for spending, CUT IT .

Hey ticker I agree 150%. Cut spending including some military ones in regions where they don't need the US presence. Tired supporting Europe b/c they can't afford a military themselves b/c their welfare state takes all the budget.

So far Craig you haven't proved crap much less proved what I said to be wrong.

Not to you, your impervious to evidence.

The fact is when people KEEP more of their money, they have a tendency to spend and invest more. When they are taxed, they find shelters and don't spend thus lowing the amount of revenue the government takes in.

This is just the opposite of what actually happened. The wealthy took their Bush tax cuts and sheltered it in off shore accounts and invested overseas. We can look at what happened. They didn't invest in new business. They didn't create new jobs. That's a fact. Zero net private sector jobs created in the 8 years of Bush.

The last budget deficit that Demonkkkrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets.

Even if what you say were true, explain the $3T added to the debt from 2001-2006. Repubs controlled everything. This is after being handed a budget in surplus.

The reason the economy is where it is is because "investors", the small business owner and even big business does not trust the fool dictating policy from the WH , when he's there, nor do they trust his socialist agenda in ObamaNOCARE, his "crap and tax" plan or anything else coming out of his administration.

Okay. Now what explain the dismal economy of 2001-2008? I guess you can point to the housing bubble in the mid aughts. Built entirely on debt.

And craig, JFYI, I included Clinton's years. Can't you read? It says the last FIVE administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

Clinton raised taxes on the top 2%. Revenues increased from income tax and corporate taxes. The economy grew at roughly the same rate as the Reagan years and the budget ended up being balanced. Bush cut taxes and revenues from income tax (which ALWAYS grow), grew at a much lower rate.

If you like paying taxes so much, do you add more to your tax return every year? You know you still have the opportunity to do that, do you?

I don't like paying taxes any more than you. What we are talking about is returning to Clinton era taxes on the top 2%. The 90's were the only time in the last 30 years that wages for the middle class rose. And yes, cut spending. Social Security is in the black and will be for the next 20 years. Medicare costs need to be addressed and defense spending. Those are the 3 biggies.

The wealthy took their Bush tax cuts and sheltered it in off shore accounts and invested overseas. We can look at what happened. They didn't invest in new business. They didn't create new jobs. That's a fact. Zero net private sector jobs created in the 8 years of Bush.

Yeah and does that mean it's because of tax cuts?Nope.

The economy started to sink. I too became cautious and stop spending, and saved my money away.

When you don't know what the economy will look like, that's what you do. That's what I keep doing.

So myself am not creating jobs b/c of something called uncertainty and risk.

I don't like paying taxes any more than you. What we are talking about is returning to Clinton era taxes on the top 2%. The 90's were the only time in the last 30 years that wages for the middle class rose. And yes, cut spending. Social Security is in the black and will be for the next 20 years. Medicare costs need to be addressed and defense spending. Those are the 3 biggies.

See. That's your hypocrisy. You have a moralist attitude. That's my point. Your whole point is not based on anything but class envy.

I'm glad you're not running things b/c 20 years is nothing with the way the economy moves. I can already tell you the current state of the economy, with the Bush years, and, I believe, a systemic 10% unemployment, the SS numbers won't look the same in 10 years. B/c projected numbers, especially coming from SS, will never assume for the worse.

So it's not because it's in the black (I don't even know the numbers) we can just take it lightly, especially when gov manages the money.

Craig it is you who are impervious to anything of fact. Facts show over and over that reduction in taxation does increase revenue, unfortunately they don't reduce spending by leftist who want to keep em dum and down on the plantation. These same facts have been disputed by the leftis by every means possible but NEVER PROVEN WRONG. The same was with Bush's tax cuts and JFK's tax cuts in the 60's.

I said the 2007 budget was the demonkkkrats and it was. They controlled Congress and they passed it and Obama voted for it. That makes it as much and more his and the dems as it was Bush's. Remember The congress passes the budget, not the President. So far Odumbo hasn't had the balls to submit one that the dems will vote on. Submitted but never voted on is the case in fact. Why, because it would have killed them even more in the past elections. NO GUTS! Now read the report and come back and try to piss on my leg again. You've lost this one Craig just like all the damn libtards before you have. You can't dispute the facts and the numbers.The IRS, the Treasury, The Congressional reports all verify these facts but you fools on the left continue to try to dispute them as well as label them Tax Cuts For the Rich. Read the facts! IT AINT SO.

Report follows in next post. I suggest you read it before making more ignorant comments.

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.

High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

It's enough for me that you see the folly of government attempting to tax us into prosperity.

Apples and oranges

Actually it's social security taxes and corporate taxes. Raise one, lower the other or vice vers or raise both, as high as you want them to be, the federal government will never break collecting more than 20% or so of the GDP in revenue.

Your rebuttal is a confirmation, not a rebuttal.

I'm sure there's a box of Rice A Roni available for your playing today.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away fromextinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must befought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day wewill spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children whatit was once like in the United States where men werefree." -- Ronald Reagan

remember

Andrew Breitbart...American Hero

Mac 'n GeeeZis my food blog...enjoy! Sorry I haven't added to it in a long while.

President Obama has done such a horrible job with the economy and foreign policy that now Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States :-)

important reminders:

We are surrounded by IDIOTS...Mr. Z

“Barack Obama's political genius is his ability to say things that will sound good to people who have not followed the issues in any detail —regardless of how obviously fraudulent what he says may be to those who have. Shameless effrontery can be a huge political asset, especially if uninformed voters outnumber those who are informed.” Thomas Sowell.........AMENTolerance is the last virtue of a dying society. (doesn't matter who wrote it, it's true and it's here)

The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.... Peter Brimelow

The difference between golf and government is that in golf you can't improve your lie. ~George Deukmejian

Rules of Engagement

I have the greatest readers/commenters on the planet, and I encourage all to engage with us all and enjoy! I ask for respect for them as well as for myself. No gratuitous profanity. Friends can get away with more than people who insult me or my readers, and will, trust me.You will be deleted for whatever I find delete-provoking. It's my house.No Christianity or Judaism bashingEnlighten, complain, or challenge, but keep it succinct. And please don't whine if you don't follow the rules and you're deleted. Thanks!I advise all patrons that they are individually responsible for unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted through respective ISPs.

I hereby advise all readers against transmitting via comments, or links to other sites, any material that may constitute criminal behavior, or give rise to civil liability, including (but not limited to) violation of local or state laws, United States Code or regulation, or any international statute to which the United States is a signatory.